MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415380603 · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v20n6p134

Determining the Impact of Key Social Determinants on Mental Wellbeing of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada

2025· article· W4415380603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yasir Saeed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSocioeconomic statusMultinomial logistic regressionSocial determinants of healthHousehold incomeDescriptive statisticsIndigenousGeneral Social SurveyScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health ailments are on the rise across the world. Across Canada, it is believed that one out of every fifth person experiences some form of mental healthcare issue. The present study builds on the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS) 2017 to determine the impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors including age, gender, household income, mental health condition (anxiety disorder), highest level of education, housing conditions, and total 2016 personal income on the self-perceived mental health status of Aboriginal peoples. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS. Data analysis was carried out using multinomial regression analysis and descriptive statistics. Results collected from statistical analysis revealed that income (total income level in a year and household income to meet basic needs) plays a significant role in how Aboriginal peoples perceive their current mental health status. Satisfaction levels with housing conditions and pre-existing mental health conditions also influence the mental health and well-being of the indigenous people. The linkage between income and mental health could be used to develop future well-being policies for Aboriginal peoples that focus on providing better income and earning opportunities to these people.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and ManagementSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207